[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 4/5] cmd: bootefi: run an EFI application of a specific load option

[AKASHI Takahiro]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:33:17PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 2/27/19 7:47 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:31:06AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >> On 2/27/19 6:58 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:30:50PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> >>>> On 1/15/19 3:54 AM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>>>> With this patch applied, we will be able to selectively execute
> >>>>> an EFI application by specifying a load option, say "1" for Boot0001,
> >>>>> "2" for Boot0002 and so on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   => bootefi bootmgr <fdt addr> 1, or
> >>>>>      bootefi bootmgr - 1
> >>>>
> >>>> You already introduced the support for BootNext. So is there a real benefit?
> >>>
> >>> This is a convenient way of running EFI application directly,
> >>> but I already removed this feature from the next version.
> >>
> >> Please, remove 'run -e' instead because it cannot specify the device
> >> tree needed for booting ARM boards.
> > 
> > See my comment for patch#5 first.
> > 
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please note that BootXXXX need not be included in "BootOrder".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi at linaro.org>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  cmd/bootefi.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >>>>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/cmd/bootefi.c b/cmd/bootefi.c
> >>>>> index 3be01b49b589..241fd0f987ab 100644
> >>>>> --- a/cmd/bootefi.c
> >>>>> +++ b/cmd/bootefi.c
> >>>>> @@ -471,16 +471,15 @@ static efi_status_t bootefi_test_prepare
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  #endif /* CONFIG_CMD_BOOTEFI_SELFTEST */
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> -static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(void)
> >>>>> +static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(int boot_id)
> >>>>>  {
> >>>>>  	struct efi_device_path *device_path, *file_path;
> >>>>>  	void *addr;
> >>>>>  	efi_status_t r;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> -	addr = efi_bootmgr_load(EFI_BOOTMGR_DEFAULT_ORDER,
> >>>>> -				&device_path, &file_path);
> >>>>> +	addr = efi_bootmgr_load(boot_id, &device_path, &file_path);
> >>>>>  	if (!addr)
> >>>>> -		return 1;
> >>>>> +		return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  	printf("## Starting EFI application at %p ...\n", addr);
> >>>>>  	r = do_bootefi_exec(addr, device_path, file_path);
> >>>>> @@ -488,9 +487,9 @@ static int do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(void)
> >>>>>  	       r & ~EFI_ERROR_MASK);
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  	if (r != EFI_SUCCESS)
> >>>>> -		return 1;
> >>>>> +		return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> -	return 0;
> >>>>> +	return CMD_RET_SUCCESS;
> >>>>>  }
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  /* Interpreter command to boot an arbitrary EFI image from memory */
> >>>>> @@ -546,10 +545,28 @@ static int do_bootefi(cmd_tbl_t *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, char * const argv[])
> >>>>>  	} else
> >>>>>  #endif
> >>>>>  	if (!strcmp(argv[1], "bootmgr")) {
> >>>>> -		if (efi_handle_fdt(argc > 2 ? argv[2] : NULL))
> >>>>> -			return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>>>> +		char *fdtstr, *endp;
> >>>>> +		int boot_id = EFI_BOOTMGR_DEFAULT_ORDER;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +		if (argc > 2) {
> >>>>> +			fdtstr = argv[2];
> >>>>> +			 /* Special address "-" means no device tree */
> >>>>> +			if (fdtstr[0] == '-')
> >>>>> +				fdtstr = NULL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +			r = efi_handle_fdt(fdtstr);
> >>>>> +			if (r)
> >>>>> +				return CMD_RET_FAILURE;
> >>>>> +		}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +		if (argc > 3) {
> >>>>> +			boot_id = (int)simple_strtoul(argv[3], &endp, 0);
> >>>>> +			if ((argv[3] + strlen(argv[3]) != endp) ||
> >>>>> +			    boot_id > 0xffff)
> >>>>> +				return CMD_RET_USAGE;
> >>>>> +		}
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> -		return do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec();
> >>>>> +		return do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec(boot_id);
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not communicate via the BootNext variable?
> >>>
> >>> I don't get your point.
> >>> BootNext and BootOrder are both defined by UEFI specification.
> >>
> >> Instead of changing the interface of do_bootefi_bootmgr_exec()
> > 
> > Who care changing an *internal* function?

So do you agree?

> > 
> >> you could
> >> simply set BootNext. Then the boot manager would pick up the option from
> >> the variable and finally delete the variable. This would result in less
> >> code.
> > 
> > No. Even with "run -e," BootNext will disappear after execution.
> > This is a requirement by UEFI spec.
> 
> Shouldn't BootNext always be reset when executing bootefi no matter
> whether the boot manager is used or not?

Didn't I say the same thing?
Or do you expect that BootNext remain after "run -e"?

-Takahiro Akashi

> Regards
> 
> Heinrich
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Takahiro Akashi
> > 
> >> Best regards
> >>
> >> Heinrich
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>  	} else {
> >>>>>  		saddr = argv[1];
> >>>>>  
> >>>>> @@ -590,7 +607,7 @@ static char bootefi_help_text[] =
> >>>>>  	"    Use environment variable efi_selftest to select a single test.\n"
> >>>>>  	"    Use 'setenv efi_selftest list' to enumerate all tests.\n"
> >>>>>  #endif
> >>>>> -	"bootefi bootmgr [fdt addr]\n"
> >>>>> +	"bootefi bootmgr [<fdt addr>|'-' [<boot id>]]\n"
> >>>>>  	"  - load and boot EFI payload based on BootOrder/BootXXXX variables.\n"
> >>>>>  	"\n"
> >>>>>  	"    If specified, the device tree located at <fdt address> gets\n"
> >>>>> @@ -598,7 +615,7 @@ static char bootefi_help_text[] =
> >>>>>  #endif
> >>>>>  
> >>>>>  U_BOOT_CMD(
> >>>>> -	bootefi, 3, 0, do_bootefi,
> >>>>> +	bootefi, 5, 0, do_bootefi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Why 5?
> >>>
> >>> For additional/optional '-' and <boot id>.
> >>> But I removed this feature from bootefi.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> -Takahiro Akashi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Best regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Heinrich
> >>>>
> >>>>>  	"Boots an EFI payload from memory",
> >>>>>  	bootefi_help_text
> >>>>>  );
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> > 
>